TMI Blog2022 (1) TMI 762X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nable since repeated issuance of notices would result in revisiting the concluded proceedings and reopening of the proceedings at any point of time. The fact finding authority having taken cognizance of the facts has reached at a conclusion that there was no suppression by the respondents to invoke the extended period of limitation which being purely based on the factual aspects of the matter, there are no reasons in interfere with the same. The substantial questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue - appeal dismissed. - C.E.A.No.46/2019 - - - Dated:- 9-12-2021 - HON BLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SUJATHA AND HON BLE MR. JUSTICE S.VISHWAJITH SHETTY APPELLANT (BY SRI VIKRAM ADITYA HUILGOL, ADV.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dent is a holder of service tax registration for providing taxable services under the category of security agency services. Show cause notice dated 19.10.2006 was issued by the Additional Director General, Directorate of Central Excise Intellignece [DGCEI], Bengaluru calling upon the respondent to show cause as to why demand made therein cannot be confirmed. The respondent filed reply dated 18.12.2007 denying the allegations made in the show cause notice, raising the other grounds inasmuch as invoking extended period of limitation covering the same period which was the subject matter of the earlier show cause notice dated 09.08.2004. After considering the reply, the Commissioner of Central Excise, Bengaluru [Adjudicating Authority] confirme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be construed as the same set of facts to apply the law enunciated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in Nizam Sugar Factory supra. This basic element has not been properly appreciated by the CESTAT in setting aside the order passed in original. Thus, he seeks to answer the substantial questions of law allowing the appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent justifying the order impugned, submitted that the entire material was made available before the adjudicating authority as per the letter dated 17.12.2003. There is no dispute about the fact that the appellants had proceeded against the respondent in 2004 by issuing show cause notice dated 09.08.2004 alleging suppression of facts and demanding service tax of ₹ 40,90,811/- for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cause notice dated 09.08.2004, which relates to the period April 1998 March 2004. The first notice in fact did not contain the proposal to demand service tax on the respondent in respect of the activities other than security agent services. In order to justify the demands of extended period of limitation under Section 73 of the Act, the Adjudicating Authority has arrived at a finding that the respondents have not kept a copy of such bills pertaining to security services but had given only the break-up of services of other services on which service tax has not been paid. Much emphasis is placed on this point by the learned counsel for the Revenue. 8. It is beyond comprehension as to what prevented the department to investigate in the y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d but the binding nature of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 9. In the case of Commissioner of Central Excise Jaipur-I V/s. M/s. Shanker Products [(2015) 5 WLC 375], Hon ble High Court of Rajasthan has held thus: 6. We have examined the order-inoriginal as well as the order passed by the Tribunal, and find that the department was aware of the activities of the assessee. It was not a case where the department was not aware of the excisable manufacturing activity, as the assessee was already served show cause notice on 28.08.2008. The assessee had not opted for registration, nor paid the duty for the alleged clearance showing deliberate avoidance in compliance of the law. 7. Section 11A(1) of the Act providing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
